LAME 3.97 Stable

when should we expect LAME 4.0?[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295905"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Probably anytime between a month or two from now and next year. Beta testing should be coming along *fairly soon*, but I'm not sure exactly how long *fairly soon* is and I have absolutely no idea how long it will be in beta stage before we see a stable release.

Yes, the quality will be initially worse than recent 3.9X releases but LAME 4.0 should be capable of better quality than 3.9X in the long run. However it will probably need to be tuned considerably first I don't think anyone could reasonably estimate how long said tuning will take.

Quote

When should we expect the LAME 3.97?[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295905"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Also *fairly soon.* It could be released tomorrow, it could take another month or two. Your guess is as good as anyone's at this point.

Quote

And when should we expect HO.org to update their recommended encoder?[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295905"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As soon as 3.97 stable is released, this has been stated a number of times.

LAME 3.97 Stable

I've counted the number of ABX tests I performed during january-march for 3.97 alphas : ~800. It corresponds to more than 10.000 ABX trials. Just look on the MP3-TECH forum.Other people also posted positive tests for 3.97 alphas.

Ok, let me rephrase my question:Why is there work being done on a 4.x version, when there isn't a stable/final release of 3.97 yet?Does this have to do with different teams of developers?[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295789"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

To make things simple: Takehiro works on 4.0, Gabriel and Robert work on 3.xSo, yeah, you could consider them "different teams"[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295790"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

...why isn't Takehiro working on 3.97 together with Gabriel and Robert?Or vice versa...., why not drop further developement of 3.97 and concentrate all efforts on 4.x?[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295798"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In conclusion; I'm not in a hurry for a new version. I prefer developers taking their time to deliver quality than them getting rushed into delivering something nobody's really happy with.

LAME 3.97 Stable

Maybe I'm getting on your nerves now (don't mean to) but, why isn't Takehiro working on 3.97 together with Gabriel and Robert?Or vice versa...., why not drop further developement of 3.97 and concentrate all efforts on 4.x?[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

LAME 3.97 Stable

As soon as 3.97 stable is released, this has been stated a number of times.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295914"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I might have missed the obvious, but why will 3.97 be recommended without any testing, while 3.96.1 which went through lots of thorough testing still isn't?[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=295922"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

LAME 3.97 Stable

I've counted the number of ABX tests I performed during january-march for 3.97 alphas : ~800. It corresponds to more than 10.000 ABX trials. Just look on the MP3-TECH forum.Other people also posted positive tests for 3.97 alphas.

That is quite amazing - you deserve honours for that.I was thinking the only way to get that volume of testing done, wouldbe to make an applet of the java abcx'er and collect surf-by responses.To think that much testing has been done, just recently, by one person..

LAME 3.97 Stable

Some things can grab a lot of time, like job or moving to a new apartment. Some things can be problematic for developement, like DSL connection not yet restored due to recent moving...[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=296077"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

For the record, Gabriel, by starting this thread I certainly didn't mean to criticise or complain about your efforts. I realize you have a life away from LAME, and that development is a big, time-consuming, and sometimes apparently thankless job. I had no idea you were in the middle of a move -- had I known, I would probably not have started this thread.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your labor of love, and all the hours of audio pleasure it has given me. I look forward to the day when we can all celebrate the release of a stable 3.97.

LAME 3.97 Stable

........Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your labor of love, and all the hours of audio pleasure it has given me......

That goes for me too Gabriel and all others that have put a lot of time and effort into the development of LAME. I've used it quite a bit directly - and I know LAME has been implememnted in other software which I have used also. I certainly appreciate it

LAME 3.97 Stable

3.90 3.96 3.97 4.xx I´m not trying to say that LAME is dead. However is there really big difference between 3.90 and 3.97 or 4.00? May be here some optimization, tuning , etc. , rebuliding algoritms. But when I try to go a bit less bitrate VBR 121 kbit/s of 3.96 or 3.97 is getting worse(or in the best case the quality is igual) than 128 kbits 3.90. So gain is small 128/121 = 1,057..... (5-6% for 4-5 years of LAME´s develompent) (for me 3.90.3 is still best)As I understand future new versions of LAME will provide more stability, optimization,speed, tuning etc, but quality gain will be smallest. However there is cense to keep development of LAME , since MP3 is very popular audiocodec and wisely supported

LAME 3.97 Stable

LAME 3.97 (3.96.1) is faster than the 3.90 branch. Recently guruboolez made several ABX tests and it was decided that 3.97, once stable, will be the new recommended version. There were improvements qualitywise (or, better saying there were no significant regressions).

As for LAME4 it is expected to be faster than the 3.9X series, but with lower quality in a first moment. This will be reverted when proper tuning is done.

Next time do some ABX testing before posting claims about quality like you did.

LAME 3.97 Stable

4.0 is a complete re-write of the LAME code & because they have the 3.x code to look at for mistakes & possible improvements I don't see why anyone would think 4.0 will produce lower quality audio than 3.x. I think 4.0 will be a HUGE improvement over yearly versions of LAME & make development & tweaks much easier.

LAME 3.97 Stable

4.0 is a complete re-write of the LAME code & because they have the 3.x code to look at for mistakes & possible improvements I don't see why anyone would think 4.0 will produce lower quality audio than 3.x. I think 4.0 will be a HUGE improvement over yearly versions of LAME & make development & tweaks much easier.[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I guess you misread my post. Of course it will be an improvement. But the fact of it being a complete rewrite of the code is likely to introduce new bugs IN A FIRST MOMENT.You can read [a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=29575&view=findpost&p=257995]here[/url] to see that the main goal at this moment is not quality but remove obstacles on tweaking.

LAME 3.97 Stable

LAME 3.97 (3.96.1) is faster than the 3.90 branch. Recently guruboolez made several ABX tests and it was decided that 3.97, once stable, will be the new recommended version. There were improvements qualitywise (or, better saying there were no significant regressions).

As for LAME4 it is expected to be faster than the 3.9X series, but with lower quality in a first moment. This will be reverted when proper tuning is done.

Next time do some ABX testing before posting claims about quality like you did.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=296450"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don´t care about speed. 3.90.3 is still best for my ears. 3.96 seems to cut a bit much high freq. Sometimes I´ve tested 3.97 alpha 5 .... 10 , I liked alpha 5 and 6.It´s not about professional comparison or anything like that (not a numeric test).Just IMHO, not your . Here you can´t say me how to listen.

LAME 3.97 Stable

LAME 3.97 (3.96.1) is faster than the 3.90 branch. Recently guruboolez made several ABX tests and it was decided that 3.97, once stable, will be the new recommended version. There were improvements qualitywise (or, better saying there were no significant regressions).

As for LAME4 it is expected to be faster than the 3.9X series, but with lower quality in a first moment. This will be reverted when proper tuning is done.

Next time do some ABX testing before posting claims about quality like you did.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=296450"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don´t care about speed. 3.90.3 is still best for my ears. 3.96 seems to cut a bit much high freq. Sometimes I´ve tested 3.97 alpha 5 .... 10 , I liked alpha 5 and 6.It´s not about professional comparison or anything like that (not a numeric test).Just IMHO, not your . Here you can´t say me how to listen.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=296456"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

He may not be able to tell you how to listen but the terms of service are quite specific as to what is required when you are talking here about what you claim you're hearing. Click on terms of service at the top and look at no. 8.

If 3.96 "Seems to cut a bit much high freq." as you claim, then you ought to be able to pick that out when doing a double blind test and post your abx results here. If you can't, then you are talking about placebo effect (you think that 3.96 cuts a bit too much high freq. because you either expect it to, or for any reason want it to). If you can identify this problem in a double blind test then you have found something that would be of value for the LAME devs to hear more about. If not, well the internet is full of places where uninformed speculation and opinions are the norm and welcomed with open arms. This particular forum isn't one of them.

The entire reason HA was started was that the leader of another forum had developed his own set of mp3 tunings and refused to stop recommending them even after the alt presets were shown to be better.

About 397s release - I think it should be held back until 4.xx release. That way we can be sure to get the most tweaks Gabriel has left in him for it, and there will be a clear recommended version for 4xx to work towards.Release 4xx after and lots of mistaken people will be 'upgrading' to it. -embrace their confusion release 4xx first

LAME 3.97 Stable

Release 4xx after and lots of mistaken people will be 'upgrading' to it. -embrace their confusion release 4xx first [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=296470"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This sounds like a good point to me, I wonder how much longer LAME4 stable will take then LAME 3.97? Certainly if they're releases are less then a month apart this may well be worth looking into for the developers but I don't think 3.97 should be held back for any undue amount of time just for the sake of n00b confusion.

LAME 3.97 Stable

About 397s release - I think it should be held back until 4.xx release. That way we can be sure to get the most tweaks Gabriel has left in him for it, and there will be a clear recommended version for 4xx to work towards.

If I understand it correctly, the release of 3.97 has already been held back significantly, in order to yield a "clear recommended version" -- to that end, all needed tweaks will certainly be applied beforehand.

But to hold back 3.97 until 4.xx is ready for release seems just plain silly to me. 3.97 is slated to have a significant role in the ongoing saga of LAME, before the release of 4.xx, and the former should be released as soon as humanly possible so that we can all enjoy the benefits of it.

EDIT: @music_man_mpc -- Amen. 3.97 should NOT be held back for any undue amount of time, just for the sake of n00b confusion.

LAME 3.97 Stable

I´m not tending to troll. I read here http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=30547&hl=. I analyzed the results of 3.90 , 3.96, 3.97alpha 5There wasn´t single result which has shown wich is the best version. Also there are differnet settings play with it(q0, ABR,VBR etc even MP3gain) and different points of view how to test. I´ll try to do some ABX test this week with a lot of samples not for change somebody ´s opinion , but maybe mine own.